The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[ewingxmanstarks]

It doesn't matter if Bush was think about porn the whole time..Obama did get the job done by concetraiting hard on Osama's picture...the fact is both presidents had our inteligence people at work...the intelligence ppl finally put the pieces together without any changes in policy towards the objective..even if u say Bush didn't really didn't care then fine...whether he cared or not really doesn't matter...It hard to imagine he really didn't give a rats ass tho...BTW the enemy in Iraq is the same enemy we are fighting in other parts of the world.

[mugzi]

We call him a socialist because of Obamacare. Forcing people to pay for insurance isnt a capitalistic endeavor. When he talks about redistributing wealth, thats a red flag. His background and education, affinity 4 Marxism and associates as well as his actions has earned him that title. Yeah he's a democrat, but I don't think you realize the democrats of 2011 are by and large socialists.

I could go on, lol.

[ewingxmanstarks]

Wingo yeah Obama didn't double down on Iraq...didn't stop him from taking credit for it tho, but I'm not mad he's a politician...they take as much credit as possible when things go good...they deflect blame when things go bad...Obama milking Osama isn't a surprise...I don't have to buy into the propaganda tho.

[Pharmcat]

trump is not running for prez

[seren]

We call him a socialist because of Obamacare. Forcing people to pay for insurance isnt a capitalistic endeavor. When he talks about redistributing wealth, thats a red flag. His background and education, affinity 4 Marxism and associates as well as his actions has earned him that title. Yeah he's a democrat, but I don't think you realize the democrats of 2011 are by and large socialists.

I could go on, lol.

Actually that should be called Romneycare. It is so far from being a socialist program as there is no government provisioning.

[Pharmcat]

We call him a socialist because of Obamacare. Forcing people to pay for insurance isnt a capitalistic endeavor. When he talks about redistributing wealth, thats a red flag. His background and education, affinity 4 Marxism and associates as well as his actions has earned him that title. Yeah he's a democrat, but I don't think you realize the democrats of 2011 are by and large socialists.

I could go on, lol.

it makese perfect sense:

EVERYONE pays in, everyone can be taken care of when they get sick....if only the old (aka the ones that get more sick) buy insurance, it is not sustainable unless the young (aka the ones less likely to get sick) also pay in....thats how costs are off set

plus we dont have no social system, if we did, there would be a single payer option or at least a public option

and there isnt

[cmaff051]

We call him a socialist because of Obamacare. Forcing people to pay for insurance isnt a capitalistic endeavor.

What Obamacare does should be embraced by all "capitalists"; what it essentially provides is a windfall to insurance companies, who will have millions of brand-new customers to choose from. The president has provided a mandate that allows insurance companies to make billions of additional dollars in profit by guarenteeing them new customers. "Capitalists" should love this, especially the ones who have stock in these companies. The "elite" class of hedge and mutual fund managers will surely make a lot of money on Obamacare, but the middle class will once again get bullied around by rising premium rates.

You guys are so focused on the Limbaugh talking points, and you can't see the forest from the trees.

When he talks about redistributing wealth, thats a red flag.

Yet when a tax-payer subsidized bailout of banks occurred, where wealth was transferred from the middle class to the elite class, you have no problem with it. The only problem you have with the "redistribution of wealth" is when it goes from the rich to the poor.

His background and education, affinity 4 Marxism and associates as well as his actions has earned him that title.

This is all garbage. You are splitting hairs, unable to find anything substantial, while trying to create an association that doesn't exist.

I could go on, lol.

Please don''t. You are embarassing yourself.

[mugzi]

No it makes zero sense. Ask Canada or Britian how its working for them.

Canada must abandon its health-care monopoly
National Post, Canada ^ | may 14, 2011 | National Post Editorial Staff


The non-partisan Conference Board of Canada has released a new study enumerating the weaknesses in Canadas public health-care system. In short, the report says that while Canada spends a lot on public health care, our health outcomes are middling compared to other developed nations. Many countries - such as Australia and Sweden - spend less but with better results. But a dogmatic commitment to publicly funded and publicly run health care, such as we now have in Canada, prevents competition that can increase efficiency, improve delivery and hasten the adoption of new technologies and new drugs. Every country above us on the Conference Board's list permits a better mixture of public and private spending on health. None of them outlaw private insurance for treatment in private clinics, as we (wrongly) do here in Canada.

And if it makes so much sense explain this:

200 more ObamaCare waivers granted (Total now comes to 1372 and counting...)
Hotair ^ | 05/16/2011 | Ed Morrissey


This wasn’t quite a Friday night news dump, as it doesn’t appear to have come from a late-afternoon press release, but it may have slipped by readers nonetheless. Over the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services approved another 204 waivers to insurance plans that don’t meet the federal mandates of ObamaCare. That brings the total to 1372 waivers, at least one of which applied to an entire state:

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process. “Transparent”? Not unless we’re defining “transparent” as “opaque,” “war” as “peace,” and insisting that Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia, Winston. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been trying to get HHS and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to explain how waivers are granted, and who hasn’t qualified and for what reason. HHS and the White House has been, er, slow to respond on those questions for months. Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection? No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying. And the rather strong tilt in waivers granted towards unions strongly suggests that politics and the Rule of Whim are very much part of the decision process. That’s a lot of things, but transparent it isn’t.









200 more ObamaCare waivers granted (Total now comes to 1372 and counting...)
Hotair ^ | 05/16/2011 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Monday, May 16, 2011 11:41:33 by SeekAndFind

This wasn’t quite a Friday night news dump, as it doesn’t appear to have come from a late-afternoon press release, but it may have slipped by readers nonetheless. Over the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services approved another 204 waivers to insurance plans that don’t meet the federal mandates of ObamaCare. That brings the total to 1372 waivers, at least one of which applied to an entire state:

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.

“Transparent”? Not unless we’re defining “transparent” as “opaque,” “war” as “peace,” and insisting that Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia, Winston. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been trying to get HHS and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to explain how waivers are granted, and who hasn’t qualified and for what reason. HHS and the White House has been, er, slow to respond on those questions for months.

Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection? No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying. And the rather strong tilt in waivers granted towards unions strongly suggests that politics and the Rule of Whim are very much part of the decision process.

That’s a lot of things, but transparent it isn’t.

[mugzi]

We call him a socialist because of Obamacare. Forcing people to pay for insurance isnt a capitalistic endeavor.

What Obamacare does should be embraced by all "capitalists"; what it essentially provides is a windfall to insurance companies, who will have millions of brand-new customers to choose from. The president has provided a mandate that allows insurance companies to make billions of additional dollars in profit by guarenteeing them new customers. "Capitalists" should love this, especially the ones who have stock in these companies. The "elite" class of hedge and mutual fund managers will surely make a lot of money on Obamacare, but the middle class will once again get bullied around by rising premium rates.

You guys are so focused on the Limbaugh talking points, and you can't see the forest from the trees.

When he talks about redistributing wealth, thats a red flag.

Yet when a tax-payer subsidized bailout of banks occurred, where wealth was transferred from the middle class to the elite class, you have no problem with it. The only problem you have with the "redistribution of wealth" is when it goes from the rich to the poor.

His background and education, affinity 4 Marxism and associates as well as his actions has earned him that title.

This is all garbage. You are splitting hairs, unable to find anything substantial, while trying to create an association that doesn't exist.

I could go on, lol.

Please don''t. You are embarassing yourself.

Hey you dropped this.

[cmaff051]

You can copy and paste. I'm happy for you. I don't think you have a capacity for independent thought. I get the idea that most of your opinions come from Rush Limbaugh and the GOP talk radio stable, and you just come here to regurgitate what they have said. No health care system is perfect. You can find warts in each and every one of them. What the Canadian health care system does better than the American system (BY A WIDE MARGIN) is provide health care to all of its citizens at much lower cost. The United States health care system doesn't provide health care to all its citizens, and its health care spending is much higher.

[cmaff051]

[

Hey you dropped this.

That's a cop-out and you know it. Are you interesting in having an intellectual debate or are you just going to bomb-throw? I took each and every one of your points, disputed it, and you reply by copy and pasting a picture.

[Pharmcat]

No it makes zero sense. Ask Canada or Britian how its working for them.

Canada must abandon its health-care monopoly
National Post, Canada ^ | may 14, 2011 | National Post Editorial Staff


The non-partisan Conference Board of Canada has released a new study enumerating the weaknesses in Canadas public health-care system. In short, the report says that while Canada spends a lot on public health care, our health outcomes are middling compared to other developed nations. Many countries - such as Australia and Sweden - spend less but with better results. But a dogmatic commitment to publicly funded and publicly run health care, such as we now have in Canada, prevents competition that can increase efficiency, improve delivery and hasten the adoption of new technologies and new drugs. Every country above us on the Conference Board's list permits a better mixture of public and private spending on health. None of them outlaw private insurance for treatment in private clinics, as we (wrongly) do here in Canada.

And if it makes so much sense explain this:

200 more ObamaCare waivers granted (Total now comes to 1372 and counting...)
Hotair ^ | 05/16/2011 | Ed Morrissey


This wasn’t quite a Friday night news dump, as it doesn’t appear to have come from a late-afternoon press release, but it may have slipped by readers nonetheless. Over the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services approved another 204 waivers to insurance plans that don’t meet the federal mandates of ObamaCare. That brings the total to 1372 waivers, at least one of which applied to an entire state:

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process. “Transparent”? Not unless we’re defining “transparent” as “opaque,” “war” as “peace,” and insisting that Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia, Winston. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been trying to get HHS and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to explain how waivers are granted, and who hasn’t qualified and for what reason. HHS and the White House has been, er, slow to respond on those questions for months. Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection? No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying. And the rather strong tilt in waivers granted towards unions strongly suggests that politics and the Rule of Whim are very much part of the decision process. That’s a lot of things, but transparent it isn’t.









200 more ObamaCare waivers granted (Total now comes to 1372 and counting...)
Hotair ^ | 05/16/2011 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Monday, May 16, 2011 11:41:33 by SeekAndFind

This wasn’t quite a Friday night news dump, as it doesn’t appear to have come from a late-afternoon press release, but it may have slipped by readers nonetheless. Over the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services approved another 204 waivers to insurance plans that don’t meet the federal mandates of ObamaCare. That brings the total to 1372 waivers, at least one of which applied to an entire state:

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.

“Transparent”? Not unless we’re defining “transparent” as “opaque,” “war” as “peace,” and insisting that Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia, Winston. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been trying to get HHS and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to explain how waivers are granted, and who hasn’t qualified and for what reason. HHS and the White House has been, er, slow to respond on those questions for months.

Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection? No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying. And the rather strong tilt in waivers granted towards unions strongly suggests that politics and the Rule of Whim are very much part of the decision process.

That’s a lot of things, but transparent it isn’t.

i dont like the waivers myself, heck, i dont even like his plan as it didnt go far enough

as far as canada, the outcomes they judge, they are ranked #10, US is ranked #16...so their system might not be perfect, but US is even WORSE

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/overv ... rview.aspx

[mugzi]

Oh and now onto your retort because I knew after your little snide insult you'd get your panties in a bunch for my picture.

The only thing Obamacare does is benefit the gov't by enhancing bureaucracy. You have no idea how large the department to implement this monstrosity is do you?



And Obamacare does not benefit capitalism it benefits corporatism. There is a difference, despite what your enlightened left wing paradigm tells you.

And I don't listen to Rush, he's to country club for me, I listen to Dr. Michael Savage who has written best selling books and achieved more than you'll ever do in 10 lifetimes. And I don't agree with everything he says, but he talks about issues that Rush doesn't touch and he is the type of vocal conservative voice that doesn't pull punches or cowtow to smug liberals and he pysses a lot of people off because he speaks truth to power.

Here's a news flash buddy. Im not rich. Im self employed and am a small biz owner, Im the definition of middle class. But I also love the fact that I live in a nation that allows me the opportunity to elevate my financial status. I DONT LIKE HANDOUTS PERIOD. I dont ask for anything and dont expect anything. Ive worked all my life for what I have, while people like you expect producers, earners to subsidize the less fortunate like yourself. That's stinking thinking.

And do you have any clue of Obama's background? Or do you just listen to what the alphabet media says about him? To say this man was not at all influenced by or studied Marxism at length is a flat out lie, so spare me your indignant disbelief.

Now moveon.org son.

[seren]

No it makes zero sense. Ask Canada or Britian how its working for them.

Canada must abandon its health-care monopoly
National Post, Canada ^ | may 14, 2011 | National Post Editorial Staff


The non-partisan Conference Board of Canada has released a new study enumerating the weaknesses in Canadas public health-care system. In short, the report says that while Canada spends a lot on public health care, our health outcomes are middling compared to other developed nations. Many countries - such as Australia and Sweden - spend less but with better results. But a dogmatic commitment to publicly funded and publicly run health care, such as we now have in Canada, prevents competition that can increase efficiency, improve delivery and hasten the adoption of new technologies and new drugs. Every country above us on the Conference Board's list permits a better mixture of public and private spending on health. None of them outlaw private insurance for treatment in private clinics, as we (wrongly) do here in Canada.

I am sure there is a non-partisan board somewhere that is not happy with Canada's health care system. The fact is they are still spending much much less than the U.S. and have all their citizens covered.

By the way, Sweden has a all government financed health care system.

Also Australia has a universal health care system as well. Their medicare is universal. Private system only supports what people have in public insurance.

The main difference between Canada and these two other countries is the existence of private health care insurance.

The only developed country in the world that does not have a universal health care system is the United States. I suggest not to bring other countries into discussion because it will not help any of your arguments.

Economics dictate a universal health care system as all these countries spend less on health care compared to us. So I suggest you continue on your arguments to "freedom" or "liberty" as economics and health itself does not support the system we have in place here.

[cmaff051]

The only thing Obamacare does is benefit the gov't by enhancing bureaucracy. You have no idea how large the department to implement this monstrosity is do you?

Where's the graph to show the current complexity of our employer-driven health care system? You couldn't squeeze it into a jpeg image.

And Obamacare does not benefit capitalism it benefits corporatism. There is a difference, despite what your enlightened left wing paradigm tells you.

Please tell me the difference. In today's American, capitalism and corporatism go hand-in-hand.

And I don't listen to Rush, he's to country club for me, I listen to Dr. Michael Savage who has written best selling books and achieved more than you'll ever do in 10 lifetimes. And I don't agree with everything he says, but he talks about issues that Rush doesn't touch and he is the type of vocal conservative voice that doesn't pull punches or cowtow to smug liberals and he pysses a lot of people off because he speaks truth to power.

Here's an idea. How about your stop listening to radio show hosts and formulate opinions yourself? Don't let radio talk show hosts formulate your opinion. You know why? These opinions are easy to sense from a mile away. They make you look like a fool. Educate yourself. Stop parroting the talking points.

[mugzi]

No it makes zero sense. Ask Canada or Britian how its working for them.

Canada must abandon its health-care monopoly
National Post, Canada ^ | may 14, 2011 | National Post Editorial Staff


The non-partisan Conference Board of Canada has released a new study enumerating the weaknesses in Canadas public health-care system. In short, the report says that while Canada spends a lot on public health care, our health outcomes are middling compared to other developed nations. Many countries - such as Australia and Sweden - spend less but with better results. But a dogmatic commitment to publicly funded and publicly run health care, such as we now have in Canada, prevents competition that can increase efficiency, improve delivery and hasten the adoption of new technologies and new drugs. Every country above us on the Conference Board's list permits a better mixture of public and private spending on health. None of them outlaw private insurance for treatment in private clinics, as we (wrongly) do here in Canada.

And if it makes so much sense explain this:

200 more ObamaCare waivers granted (Total now comes to 1372 and counting...)
Hotair ^ | 05/16/2011 | Ed Morrissey


This wasn’t quite a Friday night news dump, as it doesn’t appear to have come from a late-afternoon press release, but it may have slipped by readers nonetheless. Over the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services approved another 204 waivers to insurance plans that don’t meet the federal mandates of ObamaCare. That brings the total to 1372 waivers, at least one of which applied to an entire state:

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process. “Transparent”? Not unless we’re defining “transparent” as “opaque,” “war” as “peace,” and insisting that Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia, Winston. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been trying to get HHS and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to explain how waivers are granted, and who hasn’t qualified and for what reason. HHS and the White House has been, er, slow to respond on those questions for months. Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection? No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying. And the rather strong tilt in waivers granted towards unions strongly suggests that politics and the Rule of Whim are very much part of the decision process. That’s a lot of things, but transparent it isn’t.









200 more ObamaCare waivers granted (Total now comes to 1372 and counting...)
Hotair ^ | 05/16/2011 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Monday, May 16, 2011 11:41:33 by SeekAndFind

This wasn’t quite a Friday night news dump, as it doesn’t appear to have come from a late-afternoon press release, but it may have slipped by readers nonetheless. Over the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services approved another 204 waivers to insurance plans that don’t meet the federal mandates of ObamaCare. That brings the total to 1372 waivers, at least one of which applied to an entire state:

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372. …

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.

“Transparent”? Not unless we’re defining “transparent” as “opaque,” “war” as “peace,” and insisting that Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia, Winston. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been trying to get HHS and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to explain how waivers are granted, and who hasn’t qualified and for what reason. HHS and the White House has been, er, slow to respond on those questions for months.

Who gets waivers? Who doesn’t? What are the prerequisites for waivers? Which conditions would require approval, and which would require rejection? No one knows, and HHS isn’t saying. And the rather strong tilt in waivers granted towards unions strongly suggests that politics and the Rule of Whim are very much part of the decision process.

That’s a lot of things, but transparent it isn’t.

i dont like the waivers myself, heck, i dont even like his plan as it didnt go far enough

as far as canada, the outcomes they judge, they are ranked #10, US is ranked #16...so their system might not be perfect, but US is even WORSE

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/overv ... rview.aspx

Well thats a disagreement that wont change. You say not far enough, I say it was an unconstitutional power grab that further erodes our civil liberties. The fact is, Im young, havent been sick in 10 years more or less and when I have its never warranted a trip to the hospital.

So I do submit my biases there. But I also eat right, exercise and try not to do anything to much excess. So if I live a long life, hopefully I'll be healthy til the end of it without much if any need for a hospital. But Im also not the type of person who will submit myself to chemo or some other medication if I have a terminal illness. Id rather just die. I have no fear of death or many regrets. Ive lived a fairly interesting life and done a lot of things and had many fullfilling experiences.

But my beef with all of this is this. We as a nation are obese, eat like crap, then expect our healthcare to be a shared responsibility. Thats bs. Im tired of the lack of personal accountability in this country, especially when it comes to this issue. STOP SHOVING 4000 CALORIES A DAY DOWN YOUR THROATS PEOPLE. Stop eating so much unhealthy fast food, start exercising and INITIATE YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE PLAN. People ask me if I have healthcare, I say yeah I care about my health so I dont really get sick.

Thats where Im coming from.

[Pharmcat]

Well thats a disagreement that wont change. You say not far enough, I say it was an unconstitutional power grab that further erodes our civil liberties. The fact is, Im young, havent been sick in 10 years more or less and when I have its never warranted a trip to the hospital.

So I do submit my biases there. But I also eat right, exercise and try not to do anything to much excess. So if I live a long life, hopefully I'll be healthy til the end of it without much if any need for a hospital. But Im also not the type of person who will submit myself to chemo or some other medication if I have a terminal illness. Id rather just die. I have no fear of death or many regrets. Ive lived a fairly interesting life and done a lot of things and had many fullfilling experiences.

But my beef with all of this is this. We as a nation are obese, eat like crap, then expect our healthcare to be a shared responsibility. Thats bs. Im tired of the lack of personal accountability in this country, especially when it comes to this issue. STOP SHOVING 4000 CALORIES A DAY DOWN YOUR THROATS PEOPLE. Stop eating so much unhealthy fast food, start exercising and INITIATE YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE PLAN. People ask me if I have healthcare, I say yeah I care about my health so I dont really get sick.

Thats where Im coming from.

end of life care is just wrecking the system, we need to have a adult discussion over how much money should be spent on that stuff, which really doesnt improve outcomes (but the hospital and docs get paid out of it)

as far as eating right and exercising, i agree on that too

[cmaff051]

Well thats a disagreement that wont change. You say not far enough, I say it was an unconstitutional power grab that further erodes our civil liberties. The fact is, Im young, havent been sick in 10 years more or less and when I have its never warranted a trip to the hospital.

So I do submit my biases there. But I also eat right, exercise and try not to do anything to much excess. So if I live a long life, hopefully I'll be healthy til the end of it without much if any need for a hospital. But Im also not the type of person who will submit myself to chemo or some other medication if I have a terminal illness. Id rather just die. I have no fear of death or many regrets. Ive lived a fairly interesting life and done a lot of things and had many fullfilling experiences.

But my beef with all of this is this. We as a nation are obese, eat like crap, then expect our healthcare to be a shared responsibility. Thats bs. Im tired of the lack of personal accountability in this country, especially when it comes to this issue. STOP SHOVING 4000 CALORIES A DAY DOWN YOUR THROATS PEOPLE. Stop eating so much unhealthy fast food, start exercising and INITIATE YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE PLAN. People ask me if I have healthcare, I say yeah I care about my health so I dont really get sick.

Thats where Im coming from.

You are aware that there are people who live perfectly healthy lives, they exercise, they eat well, yet they still have health issues? You have been lucky throughout your life not to hit an emergency room or have to go to a doctor. Please don't let your luckiness and white priviledge get in the way of the fact that are people who need health care. Some people are more genetically prone to certain illnesses. Some people get cancer and have no choice but to go see a doctor.

You have such a distorted view of reality that it is laughable. You subscribe to the "me, me, me" philosophy and, trust me, when the time comes when you are struggling in life, you can't make rent payment, you can't afford health insurance.... I'll laugh, because I'll remember the compassion you had for people in similar circumstances.

[mugzi]

Where's the graph to show the current complexity of our employer-driven health care system? You couldn't squeeze it into a jpeg image.


Please tell me the difference. In today's American, capitalism and corporatism go hand-in-hand.




Here's an idea. How about your stop listening to radio show hosts and formulate opinions yourself? Don't let radio talk show hosts formulate your opinion. You know why? These opinions are easy to sense from a mile away. They make you look like a fool. Educate yourself. Stop parroting the talking points.

Well you can use google, why don't you stop being an intellectually lazy liberal and dig it up yourself.

And why am I not surprised that you would respond with a blanket capitalism/corporatism are analogous statement? LOL. Capitalism creates jobs and prosperity, corporatism is a unholy union between govt and business that caters to elite special interests. There is a difference despite your anti business cynicism.

And I don't need your ideas. Nor a talk show hosts. Apparently I must be able to think critically if I can respond to multiple political threads, topics and news stories and offer my viewpoint, respond to detractors and attract admirers. You haven't or maybe you can't.

I listen to Savage to hear about stories your MSM doesn't care about, report or know about. Murdering of Coptic Christians in Egypt by the peaceful freedom fighters for example. Oh you didnt hear about that on MSNBC did you?

And here's a newsflash. Having the temerity to think crtically and disagree with the likes of you makes me anything but a fool, in fact it's what makes me far more intelligent that you'll ever be politically, socially and morally.

[Pharmcat]

i have already posted my story, bout how i couldnt get HC b/c of my thyroid condition and headaches...and I eat right, exercise 6X per week, and what not

always denied individual HC insurance due to pre exisiting conditions

that changed last year, thankfully